lect06-第6节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
lands。 Indeed; it has been suggested that its fortunes are
identical with those of the great bulk of the Irish people。 It
consisted of the Fuidhirs; the strangers or fugitives from other
territories; men; in fact; who had broken the original tribal
bond which gave them a place in the community; and who had to
obtain another as best they might in a new tribe and a new place。
The Brehon law shows by abundant evidence that the class must
have been a numerous one。 The desertion of their lands by
families or portions of families is repeatedly spoken of。 Under
certain circumstances; indeed; the rupture of the tribal bond and
the flight of those who break it are eventualities distinctly
contemplated by the law。 In the Brehon law; as in other ancient
juridical systems; the corporate responsibility of tribes;
sub…tribes; and families takes the place of that responsibility
for crime; and even to some extent of civil obligation; which;
under modern institutions; presses upon the individual。 But the
responsibility might be prevented from attaching by compelling or
inducing a member of the group; habitually violent or vowed to
revenge; to withdraw from its circle; and the Book of Aicill
gives the legal procedure which is to be observed in the
expulsion; the tribe paying certain fines to the Chief and the
Church and proclaiming the fugitive。 Such provisions assume a
certain order in the society to which they apply; yet we know as
a fact that for many centuries it was violently disordered。 The
result was probably to fill the country with 'broken men;' and
such men could only find a home and protection by becoming
Fuidhir tenants。 Everything; in short; which tended to disturb
the Ireland of the Brehon laws tended to multiply this particular
class。
Now; the Fuidhir tenant was exclusively a dependant of the
Chief; and waS through him alone connected with the Tribe。 The
responsibility for crime; which in the natural state of Irish
society attached to the Family or Tribe; attached; in the case of
the Fuidhir; to the Chief; who in fact became to this class of
tenants that which their original tribesmen or kindred had been。
Moreover; the land which they cultivated in their place of refuge
was not theirs but his。 They were the first 'tenants at will;
known to Ireland; and there is no doubt that they were always
theoretically rackrentable。 The 'three rents;' says the Senchus
Mor; are the 'rackrent from a person of a strange tribe; a fair
rent from one of the tribe; and the stipulated rent which is paid
equally by the tribe and the strange tribe。' The 'person from a
strange tribe' is undoubtedly the Fuidhir; and though the Irish
expression translated 'rackrent' cannot; of course; in the
ancient state of relation between population and land; denote an
extreme competition rent; it certainty indicates an extreme rent;
since in one of the glosses it is graphically compared to the
milk of a cow which is compelled to give milk every month to the
end of the year; At the same time there is no reason to suppose
that; in the first instance; the Fuidhir tenants were
oppressively treated by the Chiefs。 The Chief had a strong
interest in encouraging them; 'he brings in Fuidhirs;' says one
of the tracts; to increase his wealth。' The interests really
injured were those of the Tribe; which may have become stronger
for defence or attack by the addition to the population of the
territory; but which certainly suffered as a body of joint
proprietors by the curtailment of the waste land available for
pasture。 The process before described by which the status of the
tribesmen declined proportionately to the growth of the Chiefs'
powers; must have been indirectly hastened in several ways by the
introduction of Fuidhirs。 Such indications of the course of
change as the Brehon laws furnish are curiously in harmony with a
passage from a work recently published; which; amid much other
valuable matter; gives a most vivid picture of agricultural life
in the backward Indian province of Orissa。 Mr Hunter; the writer;
is speaking of the relation of landlord and tenant; but as the
'hereditary peasantry' referred to have; as against their
landlord; rights defined by law; they are not without analogy to
the tribesmen of an ancient Irish territory。 'The migratory
husbandman;' the Fuidhir of modern India; 'not only lost his
hereditary position in his own village; but he was an object of
dislike and suspicion among the new community into which he
thrust himself。 For every accession of cultivators tended to
better the position of the landlord; and pro tanto to injure that
of the (older) cultivators。 So long as the land on an estate
continued to be twice as much as the hereditary peasantry could
till; the resident husbandmen were of too much importance to be
bullied or squeezed into discontent。 But once a large body of
immigrant cultivators had grown up; this primitive check on the
landlords' exactions was removed。 The migratory tenants;
therefore; not only lost their position in their old villages;
but they were harassed in their new settlements。 Worse than all;
they were to a certain extent confounded with the landless low
castes who; destitute of the local connections so keenly prized
in rural society as the evidences of respectability; wandered
about as hired labourers and temporary cultivators of surplus
village lands。' (Hunter; 'Orissa;' i。 57; 58)
You will perhaps have divined the ground of the special
attention which has been claimed for these Fuidhir tenants; and
will be prepared to hear that their peculiar status has been
supposed to have a bearing on those agrarian difficulties which
have recurred with almost mysterious frequency in the history of
Ireland。 It is certainly a striking circumstance that in the far
distance of Irish tradition we come upon conflicts between
rent…paying and rent…receiving tribes that; at the first
moment when our information respecting Ireland becomes full and
trustworthy; our informants dwell with indignant emphasis on the
'racking' of tenants by the Irish Chiefs and that the relation
of Irish landlord and Irish tenant; after being recognised ever
since the beginning of the century as a social difficulty of the
first magnitude; finally became a political difficulty ; which
was settled only the other day。 I do not say that there is not a
thread of connection between these stages of Irish agrarian
history; but there are two opposite errors into which we may be
betrayed if we assume the thread to have been uniform throughout。
In the first place; we may be tempted to antedate the influence
of those economical laws which latterly had such powerful
operation in Ireland until their energy was well…nigh spent
through the consequences of the great famine of 1845…6。 An
overflowing population and a limited area of cultivable land had
much to do; and probably more than anything else to do; with the
condition of Ireland during that period; but neither the one nor
the other was a characteristic of the country at the end of the
sixteenth century。 Next; we may perhaps be inclined; as some
writers of great merit seem to me to be; to post…date the social
changes which caused so large a portion of the soil of Ireland to
be placed under the uncontrolled Law of the Market; or; to adopt
the ordinary phraseology; which multiplied 'tenants at will' to
an unusual extent。 Doubtless; if we had to found an opinion as to
these causes exclusively on ancient Irish law; and on modern
English real property law; we should perhaps come to the
conclusion that an archaic system; barely recognising absolute
ownership; had been violently and unnaturally replaced by a
system of far more modern stamp based upon abso